Sign up ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Using iptraf, tcpdump and wireshark I can see a SYN packet coming in but only the ACK FLAG is set in reply packet.

I'm running Debian 5 with kernel 2.6.36

I've turned off window_scaling and tcp_timestamps, tcp_tw_recycle and tcp_tw_reuse:

cat /etc/sysctl.conf 

net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle = 0
net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 0
net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 0
net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 0

I've attached an image of the wireshark output.

Output to netstat

netstat -natu | grep ''

tcp        0      0     SYN_RECV

I've been doing everything possible to find a solution and have yet to figure out the problem, so any help/suggestions are much appreciated.

UPDATE 1: I've set tcp_syncookies = 0 and noticed I am now replying with 1 SYN+ACK for every 50 SYN requests. The host trying to connect is sending a SYN request about once every second.


share|improve this question
Did you run sysctl -p after changing /etc/sysctl.conf? –  Mark Wagner Aug 3 '11 at 16:51
yes and rebooted. –  jeff Aug 3 '11 at 20:31
I assume your server is the machine with the IP This packet capture was generated on that machine itself, not on a firewall in between? What state is the TCP socket in when you run netstat? SYN_RECV? SYN_SENT? –  akramer Aug 5 '11 at 6:55
correct the local server is The packet capture was generated on the local server, not on the firewall. netstat -natu returns the state to be SYN_RECV. –  jeff Aug 5 '11 at 17:36
Can you post the pcap somewhere? Or at least turn off relative sequence numbers? –  MikeyB Aug 5 '11 at 17:57

5 Answers 5

It appears that already believes there is a connection (,

When sends its SYN packet, its sequence number is 246811966. Next should be a SYN/ACK packet with its own SEQ number and an ACK value of 246811967.

But it's sending an ACK with SEQ=1736793629 and ACK=172352206. Those are probably values from an earlier connection.

Any new connection attempts should be coming FROM a different port number... is that happening? Wireshark points this out in pkt#11: "TCP Port numbers reused".

Looks like the problem is on the sender.

FWIW, I can connect just fine:

1   0.000000  TCP 45883 > biimenu [SYN] Seq=809402803 Win=14600 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1 TSV=2319725 TSER=0 WS=7
2   0.022525   TCP biimenu > 45883 [SYN, ACK] Seq=4293896301 Ack=809402804 Win=14600 Len=0 MSS=1360 SACK_PERM=1
3   0.022553  TCP 45883 > biimenu [ACK] Seq=809402804 Ack=4293896302 Win=14600 Len=0
share|improve this answer
Yes new connections are working fine. There are only a few instances where the devices are not connecting and I feel it has something to do with the configuration on their firewall. Are you aware of any settings that could be causing these issues on there side. Some sort of routing config that isn't allowing the SYN/ACK packet to reach our host device? –  jeff Aug 8 '11 at 14:26
If their connections are always coming from the same source port, that will be a problem. –  MikeyB Aug 8 '11 at 14:44
I have seen this behaviour on various NAT firewalls. If a new connection is opened before a limit in X seconds has passed, the NAT firewall will reuse the source port for the new connection against the outside. –  espenfjo Jun 27 '13 at 14:32

After having the same issue I finally catch the root cause.

On Linux when a socket is on TIME_WAIT and a new SYN append (for the same pair of ip/port src, ip/port dest), the kernel check if the SEQ number of the SYN is < or > than the last SEQ received for this socket.

(PS: in the image of the wireshark output attached to this issue, seq number are shown as relative, if you don't set them as absolute you can't see the issue. The capture would have to show the old session also to be able to compare SEQ numbers)

  • if the SEQ number of the SYN is > than the SEQ number of the previous packet, a new connection is crated and everything works
  • if the SEQ number of the SYN is < than the SEQ number of the previous packet, the kernel will send an ACK related to the previous socket because the kernel think that the SYN received is a delayed packet of the previous socket.

The behaviour is like that because at the beginning of TCP the SEQ number generated by computers where incremental, it was almost impossible to receive a SEQ number < than the SEQ number of a previous socket still in TIME_WAIT.

The increase of bandwidth of computers make this from almost impossible to rare. But the most important things here is that now most system use random ISN (initial SEQ number) to improve security. So nothing prevent the SEQ number a of new socket to be > than the SEQ number of a previous one.

Each OS use different algorithms that are more or less safe to avoid this particular issue give a good presentation of the issue.

There is a last tricky things... so the kernel will send a ACK related to the old session, then ? The client OS should receive the ACK (of the previous session), don't understand it because for the client the session is closed, send a RST. When the server receive this RST it will immediately clear the socket (so it's no longer in TIME_WAIT). On his side, the client is waiting for a SYN/ACK, as it don't get it, it will send a new SYN . In the meantime the RST has been send and the session cleared on the server, so this secondary SYN will work and the server will reply SYN/ACK and so on.

So the normal behavior is that the connection should work but be delayed by a second (till the secondary SYN is sent). In Jeff case, he said in a comment he use a Fortinet firewall, these firewall (by default) will drop the ACK related to the old session (because the firewall see no open session related to the ACK), so the client doesn't send any RST and the server can't clear the session from TIME_WAIT state (except of course at the end of the TIME_WAIT timer). The "set anti-replay loose" command on fortinet can allow this ACK packet to be forwarded instead of dropped.

share|improve this answer

The one time I've seen this before it was because the outbound and inbound packets were taking different routes on the network, and there was a stateful connection-tracking device on the inbound leg. Since that device (a load-balancer in my case, but it could just as easily be a firewall) never saw the initial SYN, the SYN-ACK was dropped on the floor as spurious.

share|improve this answer
interesting, thank you. What do you mean dropped on the floor? –  jeff Aug 5 '11 at 17:56
@jeff Not allowed to pass through the device. –  sysadmin1138 Aug 5 '11 at 18:56
Reverse path filtering? –  dmourati May 16 '12 at 1:52

It must be more than just asymmetry, because we are missing an outgoing packet too:

The SYN goes out, but we don't see the incoming SYN-ACK, or the outgoing ACK from the local server. So something else must have proxied both those packets and then we see the incoming ACK - which is really the fourth packet in the sequence.

My guess is a WAN accelerator misconfigured in between.

share|improve this answer
My concern is we are not generating the outgoing SYN/ACK packet. I'm not sure how it could be missing if I'm running the capture locally on All we are seeing is the ACK packet in response to a SYN request. I know the firewall is a fortigate 50b but I do not know how it is configured as I do not manage it. –  jeff Aug 5 '11 at 17:40

I would check a few things:

Is your host multi-homed (e.g. do you have more than one ethernet interface?) - if so your routes might be messed up. Easiest way to test this would be to disable your secondary interface(s) and see if the problem goes away.

Other thing to check is whether iptables (or some other firewall) is enabled. service iptables stop will shut it down until your next reboot - if that resolves the issue then you need to tweak your iptables settings.

Also, if you have IPv6 enabled on your interface, sometimes theres a route over ipv4 but not over ipv6. When this happens, and the ipv6 route is the "default" your packets can go across the wrong address (even on the correct interface). Try disabling ipv6 to see if that is the issue.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.